[1] In a case where a single person obtains multiple kinds of driver's license, whether the revocation or suspension of the license should be treated separately from each other

[2] Whether the act of driving a taxi under the influence of alcohol after the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act on July 1, 1995 becomes grounds for revocation of the first-class special license (affirmative)

[1] In principle, one person's revocation or suspension as well as the acquisition of a number of driver's licenses may be treated as separate from one another. However, in a case where the grounds for revocation or suspension are not related to a specific license, but are common to another license or are related to a person who has obtained a driver's license, the whole driver's licenses may be revoked

[2] Article 26 [Attachment 14] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 651 of July 1, 1995) provides that "vehicles that can be driven with a Class 1 driver's license" means vehicles that can be driven with a Class 2 driver's license, such as passenger vehicles, vehicles that can be driven with a Class 1 driver's license, vehicles that can be operated with a Class 2 driver's license, vehicles that carry not more than nine passengers, vehicles that carry not more than 4 tons of loading weight, trucks, and motor vehicles that can be driven with a Class 2 driver's license, and it does not mean non-business vehicles. Since a Class 1 driver's license is one of the Class 1 driver's licenses, a person holding a special license can drive a taxi which is a business under the Automobile Transport Business Act, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Rules of the Standards for the Structure of Business Motor Vehicles, etc., all of the above two driver's licenses can be revoked on the ground of drinking.

[1] Articles 68(2) and (4), 70(2)6, and 78 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 26 [Attachment Table 14] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 78 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 26 [Attachment Table 14] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Nu8850 delivered on November 16, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3812 delivered on June 28, 1996) 96Nu4909 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 307)

Plaintiff

The Commissioner of the Local Police Agency

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu29569 delivered on February 22, 1996

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and the part against the defendant concerning the revocation of the Class I Special License among the disposition of revocation of the driver's license (Seoul 77-229430-20) of September 2, 1995 against the defendant among the plaintiff's claims is dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal against the plaintiff's dismissal part and the appeal against the dismissal are assessed against each plaintiff.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's 2nd 845 driver's license as well as the above 1st 1st son's general driver's license as of December 5, 197, and first th 1984, and since February 28, 1990, the plaintiff was engaged in personal taxi transportation business. The plaintiff's 2nd 845 driver's license as of July 30, 195, decided to use 2nd 8th 8445 to use st son's day and th son's own 2nd 9th 7th son's general driver's license as of the above 1st son's general driver's license as well as second 9th 7th son's general driver's license as of the above 2nd 197th son's general driver's license as of the above 190th son's 7th son's son's general driver's license as of this case.

Examining the relevant evidence compared with the record, the above recognition and determination by the court below as to the cancellation of a Class 1 ordinary driver's license is just and there is no error of law as to the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

2. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above taxi operated by the plaintiff is able to drive with the first-class ordinary driver's license, but it cannot drive with the special driver's license, and since the above taxi's driving is not related to the special driver's license, the plaintiff's act of driving the above taxi in this case constitutes the cause of revocation of the first-class ordinary license among the driver's licenses owned by the plaintiff, and it is not a cause of revocation of the first-class special driver's license, but the defendant revoked all the above two driver's licenses on this ground. The part of the part of the plaintiff's first-class special driver'

In principle, one person's license is not only to obtain a number of driver's licenses, but also to revoke or suspend it. However, it is reasonable to deem that the grounds for revocation or suspension are not about a specific license, but also about a person who has obtained a license, and that the whole driver's license may be revoked or suspended (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8289 delivered on September 22, 1992).

However, Article 26 [Attachment 14] of the current Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, which was enforced on July 30, 1995, the date of the plaintiff's drinking driving, provides that "vehicles that can be operated as Class 1 driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the first-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's license for the second-class driver's.

Therefore, since the plaintiff drives the above taxi with the first-class driver's license and the special driver's license that he had, the plaintiff can revoke all the above two driver's licenses when the defendant revokes the plaintiff's driver's license on the ground that he driven the above taxi.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the cancellation of the first-class special license by the plaintiff on the ground of the plaintiff's drunk driving is illegal on the premise that the above taxi operated by the plaintiff is able to drive the first-class ordinary license but can not drive the second-class special license is illegal, there is an error of misapprehending the provisions of Article 26 [Attachment 14] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act. The argument is with merit

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed. Since this part is sufficient to be judged at a party member based on the facts established by the court below, it is decided to self-market pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 407 of the Civil Procedure Act. For the above reasons, there is no violation of law by the defendant deviating from or abusing the right to re-conception of the disposition of this case revoking the first class ordinary and special motor vehicle driver's license of this case. Thus, the part of the judgment against the defendant's claim for revocation of the first class special vehicle driver's license of this case among the plaintiff's claims is dismissed as it is without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)